4 ms·

Ubuntu LTS is a joke, really. Any major issue found in any core package is usually forwarded "upstream" (which is Debian). Very few people in Ubuntu have, appa

Ubuntu LTS is a joke, really. Any major issue found in any core package is usually forwarded "upstream" (which is Debian). Very few people in Ubuntu have, apparently, the knowledge to debug issues which go beyond simple repackaging of an updated copy. Even issues related strictly to Ubuntu (such as mount dependencies with upstart with complicated setups with multipath) do not get fixed if the issue is not resolved in newer releases and/or got already debugged in Debian. This is not what "support" in "long term support" is. Predictable release cycle in these terms is not worth much. For desktop systems it might be different, but then again in our lab (~50 users) most of our Ubuntu's users shifted away to Mint over the course of 3 years. Only one is still using Ubuntu. But of course I'm biased, I'm a Debian developer myself.

aruggirello 12y ago
Shifting away from desktop Ubuntu has probably nothing to do with release cycles, and everything to do with Unity. Kubuntu, Lubuntu and Xubuntu got very popular when Unity debuted :)
- tenfingers 12y ago
  It also has somewhat to do with release cycles. If the package you're having problems with is an old release that is not maintained anymore upstream, and/or ubuntu shifted to another package, you can kiss your "support" goodbye in most cases. Now I'm a bit too pessimistic, because in Debian such cases do also exist, though it's much more rare due to the way the stable release is managed. And I have to say that for true long-term support, with support meaning=capability of debugging issues in-house for all the core stack they release (most importantly, the kernel), RedHat is probably the only real choice you have actually.
  - davidp 12y ago
    > for true long-term support, with support meaning=capability of debugging issues in-house for all the core stack they release Your definition of support doesn't match that used by enterprises like Spotify, i.e. the ones with real money on the line. They don't care whether the debugging is in-house or elsewhere; they just want the problem solved, and they want someone they can call who will go solve it. That involves paying someone directly (Canonical or other support companies), indirectly (paying your own employees to learn and manage things), or both. I'm guessing the ecosystem thing is in play here -- it's just easier to find Ubuntu-competent people/firms than Debian-competent ones. That said, the work done by the Debian team is very valuable (thank you), which it seems ought at some level be reflected economically. I have no familiarity with Debian's financial situation but the hosting and compute resources can't come for free. A reasonable business model might be for the Debian team, or a commercial branch or spinoff thereof, or even just some motivated entrepreneurs, to serve as a (potentially non-profit) service provider for the likes of Canonical. Seems like a natural evolution to me, but as I said I'm not familiar with Debian's economics. > If the package you're having problems with is an old release that is not maintained anymore upstream Wouldn't Debian suffer the same problem here, e.g. if some piece of software's maintainer gets hit by a bus? Or does Debian make the commitment to take "ownership", if necessary, of all the software it bundles? The latter seems logistically challenging but I am prepared to be (even more) impressed.
    - tenfingers 12y ago
      >> for true long-term support, with support meaning=capability of debugging issues in-house for all the core stack they release > Your definition of support doesn't match that used by enterprises like Spotify, My sentence was exactly saying that: if you truly want your problem fixed, and the problems include debugging the kernel, RHEL is the way to go. There are companies that offer professional Debian support, but not at the same level as RH, sadly. > > If the package you're having problems with is an old release that is not maintained anymore upstream > Wouldn't Debian suffer the same problem here, e.g. if some piece of software's maintainer gets hit by a bus? I also said that. Debian suffers from the same problem, though if the package is part of the debian "base" system in a stable release, it will be fixed, no matter what. Note that base packages with release critical bugs do not enter stable releases: either the bug is fixed or the package is dropped before hitting the stable release. Once is released, it will be supported. Most of the maintainers for the packages in the base system are also developers. This is also one of the main reasons Debian releases are "costly" in terms of manpower, and that's why usually releases slip off by months due to release-critical bugs that stop the release process. I personally don't follow stable releases, as I'm a developer. I often move between testing and unstable, which are basically rolling releases with different degrees of stability. But the work of the maintainers and the base system is vastly underrated, and unfortunately criticized for being a slow process.
opendais 12y ago
> For desktop systems it might be different, but then again in our lab (~50 users) most of our Ubuntu's users shifted away to Mint over the course of 3 years. Only one is still using Ubuntu. That is due to the awful UI decisions Ubuntu made. Then again I run Ubuntu Gnome instead of Mint. > This is not what "support" in "long term support" is. Predictable release cycle in these terms is not worth much. That isn't related to the OP's argument. The OP is basically saying that predictable support cycles of 5 years is something Debian should do in the interests of keeping big players in their ecosystem instead of them drifting into Ubuntu's orbit. The quality of Ubuntu's LTS is irrelevant if people switch purely because of marketing. https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140424 https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140424 It was done for Debian 6 and I'm pretty sure the OP is trying to encourage Debian to continue that on Debian 7 & 8. However, with no guarantees, people will switch to Ubuntu since Ubuntu's quality is "good enough".
- tenfingers 12y ago
  Sure, I understood the logic behind that. And having a more tight release cycle will also intrinsically help Debian, since maintaining backports/patching a system for a longer time is also more demanding. My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. This means that it's actually more likely that you can find your $commercial package pre-built for Ubuntu, while there's no official support for Debian. Obsolete releases for commercial software are actually helpful (less support required). Not to mention that in most cases there's zero effort in making the package exactly the same....
  - opendais 12y ago
    > My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. Yes, it tried to make Linux more "mainstream" and mostly succeeded. That is what happens when you have a ton of money you can throw at a problem. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted-revenue-in-2013-but-doubled-loss-to-21-million/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted... It is still losing double digit millions a year. Debian can't match that kind of loss. I don't think Debian even has $20 million in a year in terms of donations? {not counting labor)
gizmo686 12y ago
My reading of LTS has always been that they will continue to provide the updates from upstream, whereas a release that has past end of life will recieve no updates.
Alupis 12y ago
At my company, we don't even consider Ubuntu as a viable server platform. It's RHEL/CentOS for just about everything. As you mentioned, the LTS Ubuntu versions are really not on the same level as the stable RHEL releases and support that is provided. Yes, Ubuntu is very popular... in both the Desktop and Server arena (mostly catalyzed by EC2 making Ubuntu the default Linux image, even though EC2 is built out of RHEL/CentOS boxes). However, most "big metal" servers are RHEL/CentOS or something else. In any event (and distro-fany-boyism aside ;-) ... one has to question the change from Debian Stable to Ubuntu LTS. The only thing I can think of, is they wanted a more "proper" company to call up for support... even though Debian are the guys Ubuntu calls up when they need support. At the end of the day, my 2 cents would be to get a distro that focuses on being a server distro first and forthright, not a distro that is a jack-of-all-trades.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  It's weird also, given that spotify were pushing systemd[0] hard, shuttleworth[1] conceded - but the version of LTS Ubuntu 14.04 [2] that spotify switched to is on Upstart. [0] http://www.muktware.com/2014/01/spotify-uses-debian-endorses-systemd-instead-upstarts-default/19587 http://www.muktware.com/2014/01/spotify-uses-debian-endorses... [1] http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2014/06/msg00014.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2014/06/msg00014.h...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tenfingers 12y ago
  Indeed. We've been running RHEL kernels with a Debian userland for a looong time.
- rlpb 12y ago
  > ...even though Debian are the guys Ubuntu calls up when they need support. Nonsense. Citation needed, please. Many key Ubuntu developers are also Debian developers, so I'm not sure what calling up Debian guys even means.
- 12y ago
rlpb 12y ago
> Any major issue found in any core package is usually forwarded "upstream" (which is Debian). Of 4571 bugs sent to Debian from Ubuntu (and tagged as such), 3905 came with patches [1]. > Very few people in Ubuntu have, apparently, the knowledge to debug issues which go beyond simple repackaging of an updated copy. The data says otherwise. If the bug originates upstream, then it's considered just good manners to forward the bug report upstream, rather than maintain the patch just in Ubuntu. Otherwise upstreams scream loudly that Ubuntu doesn't play well with the community. You can't have it both ways. Do you want bug reports for bugs your packages, or don't you? Do you not want free QA from Ubuntu users? As for supplying fixes, that depends on priorities, and that applies to everyone (regardless of distribution). Better to forward the bug even if it isn't a priority to fix. But where the fix is a priority for Ubuntu users, a patch is generally sent to Debian, as the data shows. [1]: http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_usertag.cgi http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_usertag.cgi
warbiscuit 12y ago
Not to mention that Debian consistently supports "in-place" upgrades when moving between releases, minimizing admin time doing the upgrade, and actual server downtime. Whereas Ubuntu... I tried using it on a few servers, their complete lack of in-place support meant the servers had to be rebuilt from scratch on a near-yearly basis if we wanted the latest release. Just not feasible.
- rlpb 12y ago
  > their complete lack of in-place support How so? In what way does Ubuntu not support this? Not to mention: if you're not at least using configuration management by now, you're doing it wrong. Rebuilding a server should be a completely automatic process.
  - warbiscuit 12y ago
    Typed too hastily, meant "in-place upgrades".
    - rlpb 12y ago
      ...which Ubuntu supports.
    - Alupis 12y ago
      In fairness, RHEL/CentOS did not support in-place upgrades between major releases until RHEL/CentOS 7 (just released). Prior to 7, it was recommend to always do a fresh install.

aruggirello 12y ago

Shifting away from desktop Ubuntu has probably nothing to do with release cycles, and everything to do with Unity. Kubuntu, Lubuntu and Xubuntu got very popular when Unity debuted :)

tenfingers 12y ago
It also has somewhat to do with release cycles. If the package you're having problems with is an old release that is not maintained anymore upstream, and/or ubuntu shifted to another package, you can kiss your "support" goodbye in most cases. Now I'm a bit too pessimistic, because in Debian such cases do also exist, though it's much more rare due to the way the stable release is managed. And I have to say that for true long-term support, with support meaning=capability of debugging issues in-house for all the core stack they release (most importantly, the kernel), RedHat is probably the only real choice you have actually.
- davidp 12y ago
  > for true long-term support, with support meaning=capability of debugging issues in-house for all the core stack they release Your definition of support doesn't match that used by enterprises like Spotify, i.e. the ones with real money on the line. They don't care whether the debugging is in-house or elsewhere; they just want the problem solved, and they want someone they can call who will go solve it. That involves paying someone directly (Canonical or other support companies), indirectly (paying your own employees to learn and manage things), or both. I'm guessing the ecosystem thing is in play here -- it's just easier to find Ubuntu-competent people/firms than Debian-competent ones. That said, the work done by the Debian team is very valuable (thank you), which it seems ought at some level be reflected economically. I have no familiarity with Debian's financial situation but the hosting and compute resources can't come for free. A reasonable business model might be for the Debian team, or a commercial branch or spinoff thereof, or even just some motivated entrepreneurs, to serve as a (potentially non-profit) service provider for the likes of Canonical. Seems like a natural evolution to me, but as I said I'm not familiar with Debian's economics. > If the package you're having problems with is an old release that is not maintained anymore upstream Wouldn't Debian suffer the same problem here, e.g. if some piece of software's maintainer gets hit by a bus? Or does Debian make the commitment to take "ownership", if necessary, of all the software it bundles? The latter seems logistically challenging but I am prepared to be (even more) impressed.
  - tenfingers 12y ago
    >> for true long-term support, with support meaning=capability of debugging issues in-house for all the core stack they release > Your definition of support doesn't match that used by enterprises like Spotify, My sentence was exactly saying that: if you truly want your problem fixed, and the problems include debugging the kernel, RHEL is the way to go. There are companies that offer professional Debian support, but not at the same level as RH, sadly. > > If the package you're having problems with is an old release that is not maintained anymore upstream > Wouldn't Debian suffer the same problem here, e.g. if some piece of software's maintainer gets hit by a bus? I also said that. Debian suffers from the same problem, though if the package is part of the debian "base" system in a stable release, it will be fixed, no matter what. Note that base packages with release critical bugs do not enter stable releases: either the bug is fixed or the package is dropped before hitting the stable release. Once is released, it will be supported. Most of the maintainers for the packages in the base system are also developers. This is also one of the main reasons Debian releases are "costly" in terms of manpower, and that's why usually releases slip off by months due to release-critical bugs that stop the release process. I personally don't follow stable releases, as I'm a developer. I often move between testing and unstable, which are basically rolling releases with different degrees of stability. But the work of the maintainers and the base system is vastly underrated, and unfortunately criticized for being a slow process.

opendais 12y ago

> For desktop systems it might be different, but then again in our lab (~50 users) most of our Ubuntu's users shifted away to Mint over the course of 3 years. Only one is still using Ubuntu. That is due to the awful UI decisions Ubuntu made. Then again I run Ubuntu Gnome instead of Mint. > This is not what "support" in "long term support" is. Predictable release cycle in these terms is not worth much. That isn't related to the OP's argument. The OP is basically saying that predictable support cycles of 5 years is something Debian should do in the interests of keeping big players in their ecosystem instead of them drifting into Ubuntu's orbit. The quality of Ubuntu's LTS is irrelevant if people switch purely because of marketing. https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140424 https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140424 It was done for Debian 6 and I'm pretty sure the OP is trying to encourage Debian to continue that on Debian 7 & 8. However, with no guarantees, people will switch to Ubuntu since Ubuntu's quality is "good enough".

tenfingers 12y ago
Sure, I understood the logic behind that. And having a more tight release cycle will also intrinsically help Debian, since maintaining backports/patching a system for a longer time is also more demanding. My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. This means that it's actually more likely that you can find your $commercial package pre-built for Ubuntu, while there's no official support for Debian. Obsolete releases for commercial software are actually helpful (less support required). Not to mention that in most cases there's zero effort in making the package exactly the same....
- opendais 12y ago
  > My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. Yes, it tried to make Linux more "mainstream" and mostly succeeded. That is what happens when you have a ton of money you can throw at a problem. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted-revenue-in-2013-but-doubled-loss-to-21-million/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted... It is still losing double digit millions a year. Debian can't match that kind of loss. I don't think Debian even has $20 million in a year in terms of donations? {not counting labor)

gizmo686 12y ago

My reading of LTS has always been that they will continue to provide the updates from upstream, whereas a release that has past end of life will recieve no updates.

Alupis 12y ago

At my company, we don't even consider Ubuntu as a viable server platform. It's RHEL/CentOS for just about everything. As you mentioned, the LTS Ubuntu versions are really not on the same level as the stable RHEL releases and support that is provided. Yes, Ubuntu is very popular... in both the Desktop and Server arena (mostly catalyzed by EC2 making Ubuntu the default Linux image, even though EC2 is built out of RHEL/CentOS boxes). However, most "big metal" servers are RHEL/CentOS or something else. In any event (and distro-fany-boyism aside ;-) ... one has to question the change from Debian Stable to Ubuntu LTS. The only thing I can think of, is they wanted a more "proper" company to call up for support... even though Debian are the guys Ubuntu calls up when they need support. At the end of the day, my 2 cents would be to get a distro that focuses on being a server distro first and forthright, not a distro that is a jack-of-all-trades.

throwawayaway 12y ago
It's weird also, given that spotify were pushing systemd[0] hard, shuttleworth[1] conceded - but the version of LTS Ubuntu 14.04 [2] that spotify switched to is on Upstart. [0] http://www.muktware.com/2014/01/spotify-uses-debian-endorses-systemd-instead-upstarts-default/19587 http://www.muktware.com/2014/01/spotify-uses-debian-endorses... [1] http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2014/06/msg00014.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-publicity/2014/06/msg00014.h...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tenfingers 12y ago
Indeed. We've been running RHEL kernels with a Debian userland for a looong time.
rlpb 12y ago
> ...even though Debian are the guys Ubuntu calls up when they need support. Nonsense. Citation needed, please. Many key Ubuntu developers are also Debian developers, so I'm not sure what calling up Debian guys even means.
12y ago

rlpb 12y ago

> Any major issue found in any core package is usually forwarded "upstream" (which is Debian). Of 4571 bugs sent to Debian from Ubuntu (and tagged as such), 3905 came with patches [1]. > Very few people in Ubuntu have, apparently, the knowledge to debug issues which go beyond simple repackaging of an updated copy. The data says otherwise. If the bug originates upstream, then it's considered just good manners to forward the bug report upstream, rather than maintain the patch just in Ubuntu. Otherwise upstreams scream loudly that Ubuntu doesn't play well with the community. You can't have it both ways. Do you want bug reports for bugs your packages, or don't you? Do you not want free QA from Ubuntu users? As for supplying fixes, that depends on priorities, and that applies to everyone (regardless of distribution). Better to forward the bug even if it isn't a priority to fix. But where the fix is a priority for Ubuntu users, a patch is generally sent to Debian, as the data shows. [1]: http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_usertag.cgi http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu_usertag.cgi

warbiscuit 12y ago

Not to mention that Debian consistently supports "in-place" upgrades when moving between releases, minimizing admin time doing the upgrade, and actual server downtime. Whereas Ubuntu... I tried using it on a few servers, their complete lack of in-place support meant the servers had to be rebuilt from scratch on a near-yearly basis if we wanted the latest release. Just not feasible.

rlpb 12y ago
> their complete lack of in-place support How so? In what way does Ubuntu not support this? Not to mention: if you're not at least using configuration management by now, you're doing it wrong. Rebuilding a server should be a completely automatic process.
- warbiscuit 12y ago
  Typed too hastily, meant "in-place upgrades".
  - rlpb 12y ago
    ...which Ubuntu supports.
  - Alupis 12y ago
    In fairness, RHEL/CentOS did not support in-place upgrades between major releases until RHEL/CentOS 7 (just released). Prior to 7, it was recommend to always do a fresh install.